Behe's argument in Darwin Devolved

#81
I'd still like to know more about these HAR's, TES. The block which gets inserted, does it seem to have existed elsewhere in the genome before the insertion, or does it seem to have appeared from nowhere?

David
 
#82
I'd still like to know more about these HAR's, TES. The block which gets inserted, does it seem to have existed elsewhere in the genome before the insertion, or does it seem to have appeared from nowhere?

David
Non-precedented/non-GenBank, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic, fatally improbable happenstance of novel advantageous first-time ergodicity inside an absence of genetic pressure - occurring over and over and over and over and over.

This is called Ordination (and of course Acceleration). Darwin did not address either of these.
 
Last edited:
#83
Non-precedented/non-GenBank, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic, fatally improbable happenstance of novel advantageous first-time ergodicity inside an absence of genetic pressure - occurring over and over and over and over and over.

This is called Ordination (and of course Acceleration). Darwin did not address either of these.
I'd still like to know - did the block exist somewhere else in the genome to be copied, or does it seem to have been created de-Novo at some point?

David
 
#85
I went ahead an penned a blog article on this very matter today.

The necessity of proving that intent does not exist inside the five facets of evolutionary theory. The burden of proof does not JUST reside on those who bear sponsorship of intent-based-study. Materialists must also PROVE their case - their answer cannot be accepted by default (Einfach Mechanism).

To simply a priori declare an absence of intent inside the broader set of evolutionary dynamics - is pseudoscience.

 
Last edited:
#86
I'd still like to know - did the block exist somewhere else in the genome to be copied, or does it seem to have been created de-Novo at some point?

David
David,

I read through a number of new studies (2018 and more recent), and have updated the description of Human Accelerated Regions in my blog. Some surprise updates have arisen in the last 18 months, to wit: (the references can be found in the blog footnotes)

Human Accelerated Regions (HAR) – of the human genome.
HARs are short, [approximately 270 base pair] on an average, stretches of DNA, [which are] 97% non[protein]coding. They are conserved in vertebrates, including Pan troglodytes, but not in Homo sapiens, in whom the conserved sequences were subjected to significantly, in many cases dramatically, higher rates of single nucleotide substitutions.8 A number of genes, associated with these human-specific alleles, often through novel enhancer activity, were in fact shown to be implicated in human-specific development of certain brain areas, including the prefrontal cortex.9 10
A number of contiguous and single point intron regulatory sequences [2.5% protein coding exon] codon substitution and insertion allele differences, of 270 base pairs in average length, between humans and their last universal common ancestor (LUCA) with hominidae (apes, australopithecines and archaic homo). Non-precedented/de-Novo/non-GenBank, non-feedback-derived, non-stochastic, fatally improbable happenstance of novel first-time ergodicity inside an absence of genetic pressure – occurring simultaneously and all advantageously, 43+ times, all between 60k and 350k years ago (Neanderthal and Denisovan extant pre-archaic only).11 12 13
This is called Ordination (and of course Acceleration). Darwin did not address either of these facets of evolution. Our domain knowledge of this sub-discipline inside evolution is very scant. One can make no claim herein to a priori exclusions of intent.
“Human accelerated regions exhibit regulatory activity during neural development” (Doan-Bae, et. al.)14 Fourty-three percent of HARs function as neuronal enhancers which express as de novo cerebral and neurological development in humans.15
Given the fortuitous emergence of the 43+ Human Accelerated Regions – their regulation of and association with human cerebral, neural and limb articulation expression, Ockham’s Razor plurality has been surpassed. The argument is manifest and the dual-burden proof ethic broaches.
Three rather stark implications result from this:

1. "Non-coding" regions is a misnomer, because these HAR non-coding regions are coding for morphological changes to the brain, neural development and limb articulation. This is deductive in its implication as to intent.
2. The pace of these mutations far exceed the Roach-Glusman human mutation rate of 1 per 100,000,000 base pairs every 20 years. 100 to 300 base pairs should have mutated on average in these regions - and maybe, maybe have served to produce one trivial novel trait of pan troglodytes speciation (a chimp with lighter skin for instance, at the extreme). Instead, 12,000 base pairs mutated and every single one of them produced novel, first time, and highly advantageous traits - of intellectual advancement - all at once. - Ordination.
And I am being gracious here by giving this advancement 290,000 years in which to develop. It actually happened quicker than this.
Therefore, materialists are incorrect. The evidence is not just compelling, it is deductive in its level of bootstrap inference.
3. One must prove that intent is absent here. Such an input to evolutionary constructs and theory cannot be assumed a priori, nor as the null hypothesis (einfach mechanism).
 
Last edited:
#88
Could it even have happened in one go? Haven't the Discovery Institute lathed on to this issue?

David
Given that 43% of the HAR genetic changes relate to the prefrontal and cerebral cortex, I suspect that the following morphology (picture) applies. This occurred in a primary instance: - appearance of Denisova/Neanderthal and archaic homo sapiens 300,000 years ago. However, I would disagree that this type of allele change was 'speciation'. That is far too simpleton a way of looking at the issue. One must compare actual genetic speciations to a HAR event. They are not the same thing at all, and scientifically should not be treated as such.

Not sure if these studies have been out long enough for the agenda people to grasp their implications. :) Two processes have yet to occur.

1. Intelligent Design minded sponsors need to glom onto this and say 'Hey, wait a minute... this is rather odd. How do we construct a model which explains this 100x acceleration (actually 5,000+x acceleration in all likelihood)? But they will have no 'proof'.​
2. Materialists then have to make up a new intimidating-sounding explanation which solves hyperacceleration; because the old laundry list of evolutionary terms won't fool anyone regarding the HAR issue. Thereafter 'skeptics' and science enthusiasts can wield the word like a shillelagh to beat up people who ask unauthorized questions or intimidate scientists who might even think of examining an unauthorized idea.​
The word they create will of course, mean absolutely nothing - but it will sound scientific:​
pseudo-theory : intimidating terminology which explains anything, everything and nothing - all at the same time.​

Neanderthal vs Human.png
 
Top